Battle of Britain Effect

[JerseyJohn]

And Jim Boggs, My Old Friend!

Good to see you in these parts again.

I've been lurking in the General Forum and want to congratulate you on being elected it's mayor!

---

The thing about our friend Shaka is a bit of a secret. The man is brilliant except for his sense of geography. Anyway, he's got it pinned down to the proper continent.

In CivIII if you download the latest patch it's scenario editor is outstanding.

---

[ February 13, 2003, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaWolf_48]

For JJ

I was reading about Malta and to my supprise, the English lost 1000 planes around Malta, the Italians lost 400, and the Germans 700 planes. That's a lot of dying and hardware lost for a very small Island 50 miles from Sicily.

Because of Ultra the English knew when the Italian supply ships would travel from Taranto to Tripoli. German Luftwaffe General Kesselring wanted Malta destroyed and moved a Air Wing into Sicily to destroy English air defense, but the Brit's hung tough, and destroyed three fourths of Italian shipping trying to get thru.

All told, the RAF lost as many pilots as the battle of britain around Malta.

Shocking results.....

With Stalingrad mounting up, Rommel and the Afrika Army (Rommel insisted to call it an Army instead of Korp, his ego I guess) recieved less and less of everything, plus the Malta factor.

[ February 13, 2003, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf

Man -- I knew it was a bloodbath but you've just provided an education on the subject! Thanks for the info. I remember hearing in a documentary or reading somewhere that it was the most bombed piece of real estate in the war.

Ironically, the Allies never cracked the Italian naval code and most of the supplies that did make it through were arranged on the Italian line. Naturally, the convoys Rommel most wanted were sent out, at Rommel's insistence, using ULTRA. What a weird situation.

Kesselring was also planning a Crete style operation to take the island. Rommel nixed it when Tobruck fell as he felt the troops would be better used in the Alexandria drive. I believe the invasion force consisted of the German 50th Brig [paratroopers], an Italian paratrooper regiment and an Italian infantry division.

Rommel was basing his advance largely on the stockpiles of petrol he'd captured in Libya.

Kesselring's chagrin at having the operation cancelled must have been considerable; especially when the Afrika Korps became bogged down at El Alemain.

The Italian Navy and Merchantmen used to call that Libya trip The Death Run! What's interesting as interesting as the quantities sunk is the quantity of supplies that actually got through to North Africa.

Rommel didn't put a very high priority on how it was handled, assigning a major to take care of all his supply decisions! Needless to say the poor guy was tossed about at every turn by higher ranking officers pulling for priorities.

His worst decisions involved securing his supply base. Before replacing Richenau as sixth army commander, von Paulus made a report on the North African situation after the fall of Tobruk and recommended the Afrika Korps remain in Libya. His specific reason was the incredibly long supply line from Benghazi across Cyranica and the Western Desert. He said it would be inpossible to protect if Alexandria were not captured. Paulus turned out to be totally correct in his assessment.

Leading right back to Rommel's decision to cancel the Malta Operation.

Nice point about the redesignation of the Afrika Korps turning into Panzer Armee Afrika. I think, more than anything else, Hitler had to justify making him a Fieldmarschal. The Italian liason was named something like BamBastico and Rommel turned it into something along the lines of Bombastical!

At it's peak I think the whole force totalled 2 panzer divisions, 2 motorized infantry divisions, 2 Italian armored divisions and 9 Italian infantry divisions. I'm not certain whether Rommel ever officially commanded the Italians. They fought much better for him than they ever did for their own commanding generals; of course, he also used them much more effectivly. The two Italian armored units, Ariete and Littorio I believe, fought especially well considering how poor their tanks and anti-tank guns were.

I think there's no doubt Rommel was a great tactical commander and a truly great corps commander, but I think he was over his head as a defacto Army Group commander. Probably the qualities that made him an outstanding field commander were his weaknesses for higher command. For example, leading from his tank. That sounds good, but on numerous occasions his HQ couldn't reach him when key decisions needed to be made. Fortunately he had some excellent subordinates who thought on their feet. The apparent low supply priority is another point.

Which isn't to say he wasn't a great general by any ordinary standards. It's only to say he was a great tactical thinker thrust into the role of strategist, where he wasn't great.

[ February 13, 2003, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

As far as penalties for flying over enemy Airspace.. Historical levels should be in place here, though the penalty should be to experience bars instead of unit strength, you can usually find a new pilot but not the experienced ones... The Brits, had Radar balloons and many other sneaky little tools to damage advancing Luftwaffe units. Actually creating an airfield in this game allows you to rellocate your air with a snap of your fingers while during history most airfields took work. You shouldn't able to put air anywhere you want..Use it to block infantry invasions. In fact it should be invisible to infantry or other units, as they stack over it...

if not a relatively small amount of damage incurred

as far as Brit experience, by the Battle Of Britian they should be given a bonus bar<or 2> in Experience.. For they really came together historically. Also a bonus tech level IMHO

This all in all, would put the Germans at some disadvantage attacking Britian

[Liam]

A few other things to include, the Germans never put long range bombers on the table. Pretty much the same with their fighters, the 109 had 15 minutes of battle after it was done escorting across the channel.

While the Brits and Americans were ahead of their time for Bombers, usually in this game it's rare that someone sees the use of bombers at all even sometimes the only brit one is disbanded to create other things more neccessary to the war effort.

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

Interesting points. Regarding airfields, during the Battle of Britain the UK had a huge advantage in having paved runways at most of their fields in Southern England where the Germans were using pastures in France. This advantage became more pronounced as the weather worsened; which was why it was so vital the Germans establish a bridgehead early on the British side, not just to secure a port (such as Dover) but also to grab some of the airfields the RAF was using and secure their use for the Luftwaffe. That would have had a double effect. First, depriving the Brits of their use and second, securing them for their own use.

Also, as the bridgehead fanned out, it would have disrupted the radar network and also made it possible for damaged aircraft and downed pilots to make it back to the secured German area. These things would have been crucial under any circumstances but given, as you point out, the comparatively short fighter ranges of the time, it was especially relevant in 1940.

I have to disagree with you on building airfields simply because of the game scale. Wigh each hex being fifty miles across virtually every hex would have to be considered as either containing an airfield or a suitable strip of grassland (preferabe, of course, as evidenced by all the broken axles that plagued the Luftwaffe throughout it's campaigns.

Of course, some sort of provision where a permanent airbase is constructed would be more realistic, but I also think we can assume if an airfleet remains in place for a while it would have engineers construcing a permanent runway.

[SeaWolf_48]

Air Fields shouldnot be placed in mountains, or marshes, I've tried it and SC now allows Air Units to be placed in them.

I cannot remember one time during WW2 when an army ever destroyed aircraft on the ground. They simple flew away. A couple times during the Russian winter offense around Stalingrad airfields were overrun, but most all the aircraft had fled, and the main body of planes were gone and some broken or to cold to start Junker Tri-motors (Ju-86's) were left. Ground crews had to build fires under the engines to warm them up, and they learned from capture Russian airmen to keep alcohol in the oil so it wouldn't freese. Anyway airunits should not be effected by infantry.

Just like airunits or ship bombardment should not completely destroy ground units, when did that ever happen? Tarawa and Iwo Jima proves that.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Just like airunits or ship bombardment should not completely destroy ground units, when did that ever happen? Tarawa and Iwo Jima proves that.

I am so glad that someone else finally brought this up again. It was mentioned before in the older posts, but it should be stated again.

The air and naval units in SC should not be causing strength point losses to ground units. Rather, they should only be causing a readiness loss.

[ February 13, 2003, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[JerseyJohn]

About the closest example of wiping out a ground unit occurred at St.Lo, France during the Normandy Breakout. The U. S. pounded the area using strategic bombers and virtually annihlated the Panzer Lehr Division (it was rebuilt in time for Market Garden and the Bulge!). The operation was not repeated because too many bombs also fell on American positions. But I agree that on this scale it's an unlikely possibility. The only thing I can figure is the corps or army completely looses it's organizational ability, whatever that means and also sounding very unlikely for corps and army sized units.

The main problem with overrun airfields would be equipment, fuel and stores being lost. Personnel would also be a factor. When I was in SAC I think there was something like a 50:1 ratio of support personnel to flight personnel and it may have been much higher.

[ February 13, 2003, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

JJ:

Good point, they designed aircraft to stand being launched from roads or quickly layed dirt path/grass paths... I have lived near many of those airfields in Britian..Mildenhall, etc.. Some of the same ole hangers still sitting up there where the B-17 were launched from.

Though I don't recall too many fighter bases being in the Alps or Pripet Marshes as was pointed out.

Everyone knew how vulnerable airfields were. That's why they were always safely behind the lines. To overrun one can hurt regardless of aircraft. Primarily taking the HQs, supply, and whatever else available there.

I would like to see the airwar a bit more 3 dimensional in this game. Your suggestions are good. WW2 was the first War that it was considered decisive and if it wasn't in Europe it most definitely was in the Pacific.

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

I'd like to see some of those old airfields someday, it must have been especially interesting for you, as it would be for me, because you already had a good [understatement!] idea of what they were about.

I know even going to Civil War battlefields gives you an entirely new perspective. It's impossible to understand Antietem, for example, till you wander the battlefield in Autumn and realize entire divisions can be hidden in those ravines. Small wonder a Nervous Nelly like McClellan saw confederates coming out from every corner! Same at Gettysburg. Looking things over from the Union and then from the Confederate lines gives you two different perspectives. Lee couldn't have understood that terain looking out from his HQ or from anywhere else along his lines; they were under it only you can't tell from their positions!

It has to be the same even with those old airbases. I'd like to see how differently things were handled during WW II than they were a couple of decades and change later, when I was in. Anyhow, when you described the ones you'd seen I envisioned rusted old hangers with grass growing through cracks in neglected runways. Thanks for sharing it.

The SAC base I was at in Maine (Loring) was built between three mountains, so I don't find that part farfetched.

The Pripyet Marshes does sound wild, but a lot of the Pacific bases started out as jungle or swamp before the SeaBees arrived, so it's difficult to say. Even in New Yok, JFK and Laguardia have a lot of landfill under their runways -- why use prime real estate for jetports!

The air war in the Pacific is extremely interesting. Nimitz had a great system of taking key islands and having them overlap each other with aircover. The Japanese didn't understand that right away and suffered for it. Not that they changed anything later on, their troops at the strongholds, the Island Hopped locations like Truk were stuck there for the duration.

[ February 13, 2003, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

The Hangers I saw were in pretty much the same state they'd of been 60 years ago. Though no lack of funds for the bases in comparison with the many Army bases I lived on.. The Airforce has always been a bit nicer in my opinion. Also a better job if you want to have a longer life

I saw my first Stealth bomber on the ground, not in the air at Mildenhall and they have nice replicas of an oversized spitfire when you pull up.

People tend to forget even the old machinery how much money and refinement went into them to make them perfect killing machines. One WW2 fighter packed with an egg could demolish a machine gun nest/armored vehicle/Tank. Then return to mop up anywhere from 1-20 infantry... and unless you had some fairly good AA shooters not much joy in pinging a fast intelligent pilot.

Though I heard few cases of aircraft actually destroying an entire unit by itself.. They always had to be accompanied by a land unit of some type. This would ring true especially in the Forests of Nothern Europe.

As far as planting airfields. Perhaps but I still don't believe aircraft should be used as blocking items. For instance to be dropped onto a port or city.. They wouldn't do much good!

I miss the Civil War Era, it has a romantic side as well as a bloody side. I have seen a few battlefields briefly. Also live on a fairly notorious one myself.. As the state I live in lost the most men of all the Southern States during the War. I suppose why they're especially bitter though so far North..

[JerseyJohn]

Yes, I was surprised about North Carolina having that distinction as up till then I thought it was Virginia. Also, the Texans always seem to have endured heavy losses but I don't know where their state ranks in numbers. Of course, at the time they didn't have as many people as other places but Texas units were always workhorses in Armies both East and West. Robert E. Lee was particularly proud of them.

You're absolutely right about the AF being a fine career choice and that is one of the main reasons. In '69 I was about to sign up for the marines when I had lunch with a marine sergeant just back from a tour in Nam and he told me, in confidence, well, he was very disgusted and talked me out of it. Those were strange times. Morale in all the branches was terrible. This is not offered as a put down of the Marines, who I have maximum respect for, but that's the way it happened with me. Anyway, I enjoyed the Air Force and probably would have enjoyed the Marines assuming their boot camp didn't kill me first.

[ February 14, 2003, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

I understand completely

My father who served in the Army during Nam<never went> and was a Gulf War Veteran said if they ever come to you, and say you're joining! Say yes but I want to be in the airforce!